Delhi High Court: In bail applications under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), a Single Judge Bench of Prateek Jalan, J., granted bail to the applicants, holding that where the seized substance is a mixture of flowering tops along with leaves and branches, the entire bulk cannot be considered for determining “ganja” quantity.
The Court observed that under Section 2(iii)(b), NDPS Act, only the flowering or fruiting tops are relevant for quantification, and not leaves or other non-contraband material. As the alleged recovery was only marginally above the commercial quantity threshold and the exact quantity of ganja was uncertain, the rigours of Section 37 were held to be doubtful. Considering the prolonged custody and absence of criminal antecedents, the Court directed release on bail.
Background
The present case arises out of an FIR registered under Sections 20/29, NDPS Act. As per the prosecution, on 9 December 2024, the applicants were apprehended while carrying a black bag, which upon search was found to contain 21.95 kg of a substance suspected to be ganja. They were arrested on the same day. Subsequent investigation, including examination of their mobile phones, revealed alleged links with a co-accused, who is yet to be apprehended, and call detail records indicating connectivity between them. During the course of proceedings, samples were drawn on 21 December 2024 under Section 52-A of the Act, and the Forensic Science Laboratory Report dated 21 February 2025 confirmed the sampled material to be ganja. The applicants have remained in custody for approximately one year to one year and four months, with charges having been framed but trial yet to commence, and as many as 16 prosecution witnesses cited. It was also noted that the applicants have no prior criminal antecedents, and one of them was 18 years old at the time of arrest.
Analysis
The Court, while considering the bail applications under Section 483, Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, examined the applicability of the rigours of Section 37, NDPS Act in light of the nature and quantity of the alleged contraband. A key issue before the Court was whether the seized material qualified as “ganja” within the meaning of Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act, which restricts the definition to the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant, excluding seeds and leaves when not accompanied by such tops.
The Court noted that the seizure memo itself described the recovered substance as comprising “dried leaves and small branches”, thereby indicating that the seized material was a heterogeneous mixture. The Court relying on precedents such as Ravina Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6748, and Ashok Kumar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC OnLine Del 11092, reiterated that in cases of such mixed material, only the actual content of the flowering or fruiting tops is relevant for determining the quantity of ganja, and not the entire bulk weight including non-contraband components. Given that the alleged recovery of 21.95 kg was only marginally above the commercial quantity threshold of 20 kg, and that the precise quantity of ganja could not be conclusively determined at this stage, the Court held that the applicability of the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the Act was rendered doubtful.
Further, the Court took into account additional factors such as the prolonged period of custody, absence of prior criminal involvement, lack of misuse of interim bail, and the likelihood of delay in trial.
Decision:
In view of these considerations, the Court held that the applicants had made out a case for grant of bail and accordingly directed their release subject to conditions. The Court clarified that its observations were limited to the adjudication of the bail applications and would not affect the merits of the case at trial.
Also Read: ‘Ganja’ under S. 2(iii)(b) of NDPS Act covers only flowering/fruiting tops of cannabis plant, excludes seeds/leaves; Bombay HC grants bail
[Mujabil v. State (NCT of Delhi), Bail Appln. 140 of 2026, decided on 6-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mohd. Yasin, Dawneesh Shaktnats, Sumaiya Khan Sami Ahmed and Shan Ul Islam Advocates.
For the Respondent: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP., Vijay Kumar, P.S. Kalkaji.
